Smartwatches: Best Bang for Your Buck?

Smartwatches have been a thing for a few years now but they haven't become standard or useful up until recently. Companies like Pebble, Google, and Apple all began making smartwatches with the hope of expanding the wearable market. Pebble, a company brought up through the crowd-funding site Kickstarter, ended up raising over $10 million through private donations in order to build their first e-paper smartwatch back in 2012. Since then, Pebble has released a color e-paper watch, Android has released Android Wear, and Apple has released the Apple Watch. But are any of these actually worth almost the price of a flagship smartphone? Which one is the best? Which one is the worst?

The Apple Watch is probably the most heard of smartwatch in the average population. That's... unfortunate to say the least. The Apple Watch is probably the worst smartwatch I can think of at the moment. The design looks at least 2-3 generations behind, it only works with iPhones, it's as expensive as an iPhone, and you can't even get custom watch faces! Honestly, the fact that Apple is even selling a $17,000 version of this watch just proves that Apple knows how ridiculous this is. Buying a non-upgradable piece of tech for more than $1,500 is just incredible to me. It'll be outdated in a year and you just wasted thousands of dollars. Even the lowest priced Apple Watch, which is $349, is still grossly overpriced for what it does.

Android Wear watches have some better customizability and functionality, as well as some much better designed watches. The Moto 360 and the LG Watch Urbane both provide luxurious looking round watches for about the price as the lowest Apple Watch. They also work on both Android and iOS. Unfortunately, I would still not spend this much money on an Android Wear watch. It's just too much for what they do.

Honestly, the only smartwatch at the moment I would even consider worth the price would be any variation of the Pebble. The original Pebble is black and white e-paper with the Pebble Time coming in a higher resolution colored e-paper screen. They're about half the price of Android Wear watches or Apple Watches for the highest priced models. They can be anywhere between $70-$250. What sets the Pebble apart isn't just the prices, but the e-paper display allows for long battery life and constant screentime. Both Android Wear and Apple use screens similar to their phones, meaning they suck up a lot of battery life. E-ink displays only use power when they change. A static image will not use any power at all. This allows the Pebble's display to be on 24/7 and keep its battery a lot longer. So while the display may look less impressive and isn't touchscreen, I'd say the trade-off is worth it.

Personally, I'm going to wait until smartwatches become a little more useful before I invest in them. They're still in their infant stages, and I can't wait to see what they become, but for now they just aren't worth it. If you do want a smartwatch now, however, I would go with the Pebble Time. It provides the best functionality to price ratio.

Google Streaming Apps

The other day Google introduced the ability to stream apps using Google Search. This basically gives you the ability to search for hotels for example, and not only check search results in the Google app, but also see them in a hotels app you don't even have installed. Google does this by running the app on their end and streaming an interactive video to your device of the app.

This isn't only useful for the user, but it helps promote apps that might otherwise be ignored. If you like the app you're streaming, it'd be easy to find it in the Play Store and download it. This supports the developers. Google is making it easier for people to find apps that might be useful to them, and for developers to share their apps through more than just screenshots.

Could this be the first step in a whole new direction for Android apps? I've talked about the possibility of combining Chrome OS and Android, but what if Google was already doing something very Chrome OS-esque with Android, such as making applications not local content, but actually stored in the cloud? Picture your apps working like websites work, you don't actually have this website downloaded on your computer at all times. It's downloaded when you need it and cached if you view it frequently. The same could be done with applications, but less in a video format and more in a website-esque format. Personally, I would love it if Google rolled this out slowly. Start with the ability to "preview" apps on the Play Store, and have them streamed to your device so you can see if you like it and download it. Second, allow the ability to save cloud apps to your device for quick access. Basically like a shortcut to a website. And lastly, have the ability to do this extended to all apps. I'm not saying I want all my apps to be this way. There are certainly benefits to having the app locally on your device. That's why I'd love for this to be an optional feature, maybe having it ask you whether you'd like to "save" it or "install" it.

Google has always been known to focus on cloud storage and shy away from local storage. Chromebooks, for example, rely almost entirely on the internet to access your content. I wouldn't want Android to go this extreme, but I would like it as an option to save storage.

Headphone Quality Guide: What Makes Beats 'Bad'

There are a few things that make headphones objectively good headphones, and there are also personal preferences that shouldn't be ignored either. Headphones "sounding good" to you is a combination of comfort, clarity, distortion, isolation, and frequency response. Some of these are personal preferences, but some of them can be objectively good or bad. I would even argue my opinion of a flat frequency response to be superior to other opinions.

I'll start off by explaining what is good and what is bad with headphones. Clarity is probably one of the most important aspects, meaning that sounds are reproduced with little distortion. This is great for everyone. If your headphones aren't very clear, you're not going to hear many of the subtler sounds in a song. Something similar to clarity is the frequency response. This dictates how headphones reproduce highs, lows, and mids. Really deep and low sounds register low on a frequency scale, and highs registering higher. Some headphones, such as Beats by Dre, over-represent the lows and highs while disregarding the mids. In order to get an accurate frequency response, no section should be represented more than another. The sounds should all be about equal. This makes Beats great to listen to bumping music, but you're going to be missing out on subtler sounds in the middle. Many people prefer an over-representation of bass, but you don't need to buy bad headphones to get that. Buying headphones with a more flat frequency response will allow you to adjust the individual frequency levels using software on your computer or phone instead of being stuck with roughly the same frequency levels no matter what you're listening to.

Many people dislike Beats because of their price and how popular they are for what they do. This is understandable, as Beats spends most of its money on advertising. When you're paying double the price for Beats, you're really paying them to advertise. It's genius for them, but bad for the consumer. Try to look into less popular brands, because usually they use almost all your money to develop better headphones instead of spending it on advertising and design. Not to say design isn't important, but you shouldn't be willing to sacrifice design for sound quality.

My headphones? I use Audio-Technica M50s. They're largely considered by the audiophile community as a good entrance set of headphones, as they're fairly cheap with great sound reproduction.

When looking for headphones, I'd suggest not looking at Amazon, Best Buy, or any common stores. I'd check audiophile blogs. They listen to tons of brands of headphones every day and know what sounds good and what doesn't. They're truly passionate about how their music sounds and they aren't going to recommend something that isn't perfect. So if you care about what your headphones sound like, walk on the path less traveled. You may be surprised in what you find.

Top image source: Head-Fi

The Ethics of Internet Piracy

Piracy is not a victimless crime.

Or at least, that's what the government and copyright protection organisations want you to think. But is that really true? Of course, piracy isn't paying for something that would normally cost money, but there are a lot of factors to consider if it is actually harming anyone. In many cases, people pirate content they would not purchase anyway. Whether because they physically cannot due to region locks or inability to pay for it, or they just didn't think it was worth it, some people would not spend $9.99 on that movie no matter what. Them pirating the movie does not change the end result for the creators of that movie because they wouldn't have bought it anyway. In the end, it may even be beneficial to the movie creators because they could have a new fan that recommends the movie to those who are capable of buying it.

"But there are people who pirate and just don't want to spend any money! It's not because they can't, they're just cheap and stealing from the rightful profits of content creators!" is what you might think. It's reasonable to think this way, but study after study after study have proven that pirates actually spend more money on online media than any other group. Lots of pirates consider piracy to be a "trial" of something, and if they like it they will buy it. Compare that to if piracy didn't exist. They would have no way to try it and would instead move on with their lives and pursue other interests.

In fact, both the film industry and music industry have been growing in terms of profits over the past decade. Piracy isn't the end for entertainment, as much as the government and media want to make you think it is. Organisations like the MPAA seek to increase their already giant profits by preventing people from consuming what creators make. Piracy doesn't stop income, nor does it harm anyone. It isn't even clear if "stopping" piracy, if even possible, would have a positive or negative effect on the industry. Either way, it doesn't matter. Piracy cannot be stopped, so it's about time organisations stopped wasting their money trying to stop it and instead created better content for pirates to want to spend their money on.

Sources: Click the hyperlinked text in the post to view sources.

App Review: YouTube Music

YouTube Music marks YouTube's breakout into getting serious about music. It includes many useful features that make it a serious free music competitor to services like Spotify, especially when a YouTube Red subscription also includes a Google Play Music subscription.

YouTube is already pretty great at creating custom stations based on my listening habits because I've used YouTube for listening to music videos for as long as YouTube was a thing, and who doesn't? YouTube is the place to look up music videos. These custom stations are sorted by genre and listening habits, and I have to say, they work pretty well. I'm not used to all the sides of the music spectrum I listen to being blended together in one radio station. Electronic, pop, and J-pop are all blended together into some awesome stations. You can even customize the variety of genres included in each station, from less, to balanced, to more. To top it all off, you can even thumbs up or down songs that come up in these stations in order to get YouTube Music to know more about what you like and what you don't like. Also, because of YouTube's huge audience, they're is able to give some pretty awesome trending songs so you always stay up to date with trending artists.

One of the best features included in YouTube Music is the ability to not only watch videos, you can toggle a switch in the top-right to swap over to music mode. This saves data and works very well when you don't plan to watch the video and just want to listen to some music. This feature is made much better when you're a YouTube Red subscriber and have the ability to listen to music in the background while using other apps, as well as the ability to listen with your phone locked.

The interface is gorgeous. It's well designed following Google's material principal, and as far as I can see the interface changes depending on the dominant color in the thumbnail. It's easy to navigate using gestures to minimize the music video page and open the side menu.

YouTube Music is currently available for download on Android, iOS, and on browsers everywhere.

Image source: Tech Crunch

Google Is Linux's Only Hope

Linux is an operating system just like Windows or Apple's OS X that runs on Macs. It's the underlying software that runs any computer. Linux is an open-source OS that allows anyone to modify and distribute it. This has resulted in tons of "distros" or distributions of different types of Linux. Some of the most popular ones include Ubuntu, Elementary OS, Debian, Arch Linux, Fedora, and more. While all these distros use Linux as a base, they are largely different in terms of their capabilities, interface, and basically everything about them. This is a major problem in the world of Linux that prevents it from becoming as big as it can be.

Not to say there aren't big companies that use Linux. Android is based off of Linux and is currently the most popular mobile OS in the world. Steam, Valve's desktop gaming platform, has launched a distro of Linux called Steam OS centered around playing games. These are successful uses of Linux because the creators of them were already big before entering the world of Linux. If you're a new player trying to get a foot in the door, it's going to be very difficult for your distro to even get a glance when competing against all the other distros out there.

I'm going to compare Linux to Android, because even though Android is based off of Linux it has basically taken a name of its own. Android is based off of AOSP, or Android Open Source Project. This is the core of Android and, just like Linux, anyone can modify and distribute it as they please. The reason most versions of Android you see are so similar is because Google's apps are not free to use. The Google Play Store, Maps, Google Now, and basically any other Google app are not included in AOSP. People must get their custom version of Android approved by Google in order to use their apps. They don't have to do this, of course, but nobody's going to buy an Android phone that doesn't have the Google Play Store. My point is, Linux does not have a nexus like this. (See what I did there?) All the Linux distros are wildly different and not very consumer focused because they don't have a central point to develop and stem from.

In order for Linux to gain footing in desktop OS statistics, which are currently at just over 1% by the way, they're going to need an already established company to come in and create an open source desktop OS like Android. Google has already made Chrome OS, but that isn't good enough. Google has confirmed to be working on combining Chrome OS and Android into a central desktop OS, which frankly, can't come soon enough. A desktop version of Android that behaves like a desktop OS should would expand the world of Linux and, frankly, change the desktop environment completely.

One of the major things that prevents people from using Linux is the lack of ability to use Windows or OS X applications. This is a major setback. This means no Photoshop, no Microsoft Office, and very little games. Sure, you can emulate some of these in Wine, but the result is a much worse version than the original and it only works half the time. For Linux to gain application developers, they're going to need a bigger market share. If Google can bring Android's already lush market to Linux, this would increase the adoption rate and hopefully get developers to make applications for Linux. This is assuming that Google wouldn't close off the OS completely, just like how you have the ability to install Android apps outside of the Google Play Store.

Really, Google is Linux's only hope. Without their intervention I really don't see Linux expanding much more than it has. Linux startups have been proven to not work out well, probably due to lack of applications. Google has the resources, the framework, the apps, and the popularity to make Linux prosper.

Sources: Tech Republic, Net Market Share
Image source: Engadget

What to Look for When Buying a New Phone or Tablet

So you're looking to buy a new device. That's awesome and exciting! The problem is a lot of people don't know what to look for. If you don't want to get stuck with a device that disappoints you, or one that you regret buying, keep reading.

The first major point you want to consider when buying a new device is the software. I know, you probably don't think about this as much as the branding but it's important. Whether you want iOS or Android, and which skin inside of Android you prefer. Each manufacturer has a different skin they apply over Android. Samsung has Touchwiz, HTC has Sense, and LG has its own UI. Personally, I'd consider any skin worse than stock Android which can usually only be found on Google Nexus devices and kind of on Motorola flagships. Check out the latest versions of the software you're looking at and see how they compare to stock.

Second, check out how well that software runs on the hardware. How fast is it, is it prone to hiccups, etc. Also, make sure your manufacturer is known to give prompt updates. When the next version of the OS comes out, make sure they are known to give your phone the update quickly and efficiently. Obviously the best brands for this would be Apple and Google's Nexus, as both of them directly make the software.

Last but not least, check out the design, size, and feel of the phone. Also check out any features they may have that distinguishes them from other devices. Fingerprint scanner? How nice is the screen? What about the materials it's made of? These can all play major factors in how much you'll like the device you're getting. Price also revolves around this, so make sure it's within your price range and see how much price matters to you. (See: Your 'Free' Smartphone Isn't Free, and Why You Should Buy Unlocked)

You'll see a lot of people worry about the specs of the phone such as the RAM and CPU. And while these are important, most major flagships now-a-days already have good enough specs that it doesn't matter the majority of the time. Consider these things last. After you've considered all of the things above, you should be able to see what device would be the best option for you.

Image Source: Gadarena

Google+: Good Idea, Failed Execution

When Google+ launched in 2011, I was one of the first users. Originally, you  could only join if someone else invited you. There were discussions of its superiority over Facebook, how nice it is to arrange people into circles, and excitement for the future of the social network. Like many social networks, however, Google+'s minute of fame ended when it was released from the chains of private beta. The world saw it, and while there was a general consensus that it was good, there weren't many incentives to switch from Facebook and other social networks.

Google's first mistake with Google+ was the decision to, one, name it Google+. The name is clunky and seems like an upgraded version of Google instead of a separate social network. But perhaps the most catastrophic mistake was the decision to force Google+ upon all Google and YouTube users. You could not have a Google or YouTube account without at least having an associating Google+ page. When the update rolled out to YouTube, many YouTubers were in shock. There were comment section revolts over the Google dictators forcing users to make a Google+ to comment. Simply put, users do not like being forced to use a service. This created a general discontent with Google+ that caused people to hate it without even using it. Google+ was good, but its decision to force itself upon the users of its other sub-companies is what caused its downfall.

Google+ has realized its mistakes, finally. They have announced the partition of Google+ in many different ways, but still keeping the service. Just in the past year Google has announced that Google Photos will be disassociated from Google+ and become its own service without the need for Google+. YouTube has also changed to allow accounts without a Google+ profile, and comments are no longer automatically shared to Google+. Even Hangouts, a service that made Google+ awesome for talking to friends, has branched out of Google+ and can now be used without a Google+ account.

Unfortunately these backtracks cannot save Google+. Almost every Google user has a Google+ account, but there's no incentive for them to find their friends on it or use it actively. Discontent created with the forcefulness of Google+'s launch prevents friends from recommending it as their main social network, and as a result, it will not ever grow to what they hoped. Some people do use Google+, but most of what I see on there is Android and Google related blogs. You won't find many common people using it to be with friends or family. Google+ had a chance to create an amazing social network, as many people already use Google daily. Unfortunately, that was never realized.

Image source: Lifehacker

Machine Labor, AI, and the Technological Singularity

Technology is developing faster now than ever before, increasing speed exponentially. Inventions like the telephone, computers, and the Internet make sharing information quicker and more convenient than ever. This is the definition of collective intelligence, when individuals connect with each other to create a network of intelligence. But this can only take us so far, right? What happens when we create something smarter than us? What happens when machines take over?

First of all, this isn't science fiction. This is happening right now. People program machines that perform specific tasks, mainly in manufacturing. These are taking many people's real jobs right now. CGP Grey made an amazing video talking about the social and economic consequences of machines taking over human labor. To summarize, a robot can take your job no matter what it is. This doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing, it's just another economic revolution similar to the industrial revolution. There will be problems because we don't know how to deal with it, but we will eventually. The better prepared we are the easier the transition will be.

Many companies are currently working on software that doesn't just perform specific tasks, but actually learns. This is the growing field of artificial intelligence, which aims to create software that gets better over time through learning from its mistakes. Just yesterday Google announced an update to Gmail which can read an email and provide three contextually generated responses to that email. This seems simple at first, but when you consider that this is a machine generating human-like responses to human input, and then learning to get better, it's really incredible.

But at what point does a machine generating a human-like response turn into actual thought and feeling? After all, the human brain is just like one incredibly intricate computer. The Turing Test, proposed by Alan Turing in 1950 aims to answer that question. The test is simple, a human compares the answers of a machine and a human and tries to reliably tell which one is the machine's answer. If the judge cannot reliably tell that one is the machine, it passes the test. So far, no AI has passed the test, but who knows just how much more learning an AI has to do to reach this status? It's inevitable.

The evolution of technology will not stop there. When I say evolution, I don't mean the biological definition. Evolution is extremely slow, taking thousands and thousands of years for there to be a major difference. Technology is advancing much faster than the rate of biological evolution. Eventually there will be the invention of an AI that sees flaws in itself and constantly improves, or creates other copies of itself that also improves themselves. This exponential explosion of AI-powered technological improvement is known as the technological singularity. The intelligence of such machines could grow to such a scale that humans would no longer be able to keep up, and be drowned out by the intense superiority of the constantly improving AI. There's no way to tell what humanity's role in this situation would be. All that's known is that by developing artificial intelligence, this conclusion is inevitable. The only questions are when, and if the AI will see us favorably.

While the chances of all of these happening are high so long as we continue at the rate of progress we're at, there's no telling whether they will be beneficial or not. I, for one, welcome our robot overlords.

Sources: Telegraph, CBC, Wikipedia

Stop Using Ugly Cases and Plastic Screen Protectors

Lots of people use phone cases, and I mean a lot. Most of the smartphones you see around have some form of protection on them. Honestly though, that makes me kind of sad. When phone manufacturers spend months and years working on a design that looks amazing and it functional, slapping a case over it is kind of insulting to those manufacturers. Case manufacturers spend maybe a week at most trying to fit a case over the phone, but they don't dilly dally about the design. They just make sure it works and that it isn't totally ugly. I want my phone to feel how it is meant to. I don't want to add extra thickness just because I'm afraid I might drop it some day. I'd rather enjoy my phone, not play on the safe side and deal with an ugly, rubber case every day.

The number one reason people buy cases is because they feel like it'll protect the phone. And while this may be true in some aspects, I believe the negatives outweigh the positives. Unless you're getting one of those giant Otterbox cases, your phone is going to get damaged when you drop it whether you have a case on it or not. There are more subtle things you can do to protect your phone without ruining the intended design, such as getting a skin or a tempered glass screen protector.

Skins add virtually no thickness while protecting your premium phone from scratches, some dents, as well as adding grip to help prevent you from dropping it. Best of all, there's tons of different options. Skins are more of an extension of your style rather than something you deal with because you want protection. I recommend dbrand (pictured above) for their awesome build quality, customization, and spot-on dimensions.

If you don't want a skin, almost everyone has a screen protector of some sort, right? I can't deny the usefulness of screen protectors, but stop wasting your money on the cheap plastic ones that ruin the feel of the phone and the quality of the screen! Tempered glass screen protectors are basically an extension of your phone screen, feeling even better than your screen. Good ones have oleophobic coatings, meaning they resist fingerprints and oil. The glass they use is extremely hard, hitting 9H on Moh's scale of hardness. Most people won't even notice you have a screen protector on, but it protects your screen even better than plastic ones. Many claim they can even help protect your screen when it is dropped, because the screen protector will break first and displace some of the energy, protecting your screen.

So in conclusion, get rid of that ugly rubber case and plastic screen protector. Stop insulting your phone manufacturer who spent months working on that design only for you to slap some rubber over it. Instead, start using awesomely designed skins and precise tempered glass screen protectors to enhance your phone's design instead of degrade it.

Image source: Amazon, dbrand